I usually pay my monthly cell phone bill online. (YES, I have one of the little beasties - it resides in my purse and only feels its ON button pushed perhaps once every 2 months, if that.) I realize that plenty of us have written letters something like this before, it surely seems a waste of time/effort/$, but maybe the time is ripe to correspond 'on the record' in droves again? I was thinking that this month I would mail in my payment to Bell Mobility via their P.R. department via Registered Mail accompanied by a letter something like the following. Should I c.c. Health Canada and other government varieties and media? Also, if I made any typos/boo-boos please correct me.

Barb Payne

BY REGISTERED MAIL

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

On May 31st, 2011, I was informed by an announcement from WHO s IARC that the radiation emitted from both my cell phone and your cellular service towers/antennae is a possible carcinogen. Although you are not the manufacturer of the cell phone, I did purchase it from you. It has been brought to my attention by others (not by you) that both the phone and the service you have sold to me has exposed me, and continues to expose me, to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (the physical agent classified as a possible carcinogen on May 31st, 2011) if I use my cell phone and also when I do not use my cell phone. It has also been brought to my attention by others (not by you) that information related to my exposure to radiation that occurs during normal expected use of my cell phone may have been in a manual packaged with the phone or available digitally via Internet. If you publish information related to my exposure to radiation emitted by your cellular service towers/antennae, that has not been brought to my attention by you nor by anyone else.

I am a consumer who does sometimes read more 'fine print' than perhaps other consumers read. The voluminous paperwork you provided in-store that required my signature in order for me to proceed to give you money to complete the purchase of a cellular phone was daunting. The paperwork was presented by your representative in a manner that, in effect, meant to me that I was being encouraged to not be concerned about its contents. I did pour over the paperwork for several minutes but could see that, effectively, my only choice if I wanted a cell phone was to sign the paperwork. I didn t ask if I could take the unsigned paperwork with me to consult a lawyer before I signed it, so I don t know if I would have been able to do that. To the best of my recollection, I have never signed any paperwork in relation to the service you provide me, if such paperwork regarding the service was presented to me at the time of my most recent cell phone purchase I was not aware of it; my account had already been active for years, I merely purchased a new cell phone. At no time - past, present and/or future - did I sign any paperwork that clearly divulged that normal intended and expected use of your products and your services causes me to be exposed to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. At no time - past, present and/or future - have I agreed, either implicitly or explicitly, to be exposed to the radiofrequency electromagnetic fields emitted by your products and services. At no time - past, present and/or future - have I acknowledged, either implicitly or explicitly, that you have informed me and/or warned me of physical agents (as defined by WHO?s IARC) in carcinogenicity classifications 1, 2A, 2B, or 3 that I will be exposed to by normal expected use of a cell phone and/or by being in any location on, or above, or below our planet s surface where your cellular service towers/anetnnae s emissions are part of the environment.

I am sending my current balance owing to you via this Registered Mail because I wish to explicitly inform you that any past, present and/or future payment of my account and/or use of my cell phone is not implicit or explicit acceptance by me of a product and/or service that exposes me to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. I also wish to explicitly inform you that any past, present and/or future payment of my account and/or use of my cell phone is not implicit or explicit instruction/request/agreement/etc. directing you to emit radiofrequency electromagnetic fields into any environment.

Back in the early 1990s, I worked at a MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) facility with very experience­d co-workers (Intervent­ional Radiology Techs, RNs and Radiologis­ts), who literally curtailed their use of cell phones based on the type and specific LOCATION of the tumors they were beginning to see on Brain MRI imaging. Apparently­, it was thought to be very rare for this type of tumor to show up above the EAR or even in and around the male beltline (where men often attached their cell phones). At that time, I recall reading everything I could possibly find on the subject and absolutley NO research had been conducted in the US. Most likely because the Communicat­ions Industry was pretty much headquarte­red here in the US and any form of brain tumor research associated with cell phone use would prohibilt profits.

Of interest, at that time, there was one (1) research study performed and financed by a small country in Europe that was used in a highly publicized US lawsuit case brought forth by a physician to support his claim that his brain tumor (cancer) was caused by his consistent cell phone use. Unfortunat­ely, the physician eventually lost his legal battle and, soon thereafter­, his own life. Sadly, and NOT surprising­ly, the physician?­s legal opposition included testimony from the Entire US Communicat­ions Industry. Strangely enough, sometime AFTER the lawsuit, the Communicat­ions Industry began changing the locaition of the cell phone antenna which was eventually placed further away from the brain.

A few years ago, a pediatric neurologist examining one of my sons diagnosted tachycardia among other neurological issues connected with environmental exposures. Her office was near a military base. My other son experienced tachycardia as well. Both struggle with the issues described in group 2, but have improved since we left the densely populated highly radiated area. Wifi and solar power are infesting schools however and so there is no real way to avoid this stuff. The take home message here in my opinion is that if tachycardia is happening...don t brush it off.

I have a friend who lived near where we used to live. She was starting to have major problems with heart racing in cities, and she also felt great relief at a B&B which was near or in that special low noise zone in West Virginia. She did not realize why she felt relief, she just noted that the visit to that spot was very comfortable for her compared to the rest of the trip which was to New York City. She was focused on mold and chemical exposures, rather than RF exposures. The B&B was musty, so she was surprised that she tolerated the room.

She did seek treatment for the heart issues, but it did not work out as she became overwhelmed with the problems some of which included problems with her husbands health.

I am trying to say that we should not ignore the neurological/heart complaints as they are not necessarily chronic, in some cases, they can require immediate attention as this article suggests.

Please wake up MDs! We can get through this, but we shouldn t be complacent.

Kate

When I sent the IARC study around, a number of people sent me this article. What do I respond? Olle s reply interests me especially.

Despite a 500-fold increase in radiation exposure from cell-phones since 1990, brain cancer rates have fallen.

Answer:

In the time span of 1990 - 2010, a number of things changed for billions of persons:

At first, the walkie-talkie type of communication used strong signals and a different frequency bands + analog (easily over 1000 microWatt/cm2)

Then, there were the first cell-phones, using strong signals (near 0.8 - 0.9 GHz), analog (often more than 1000 microWatt/cm2)

More recently, we have a prevalence of weaker/variable peak signals (near 1.1 - 1.3GHz, digital (usually 10 to 300 microWatt/cm2)

Even more recently, we have a weak/many variable peaks signals ( between 2.5 - 10 GHz) technology, with high signal contents, some of which is used at a distance - i.e. texting, visuals, etc. (usually 0.5 - 100 microWatt/cm2).

However, the technology is clearly other aspects of human biology faster than it hurts a specific type of cell in the brain. So, the actual death rates from wireless technology have increased dramatically - proven by the Korean veterans statistics - where even accidental death rates increase from accumulated exposure of microwaves in the electromagnetic bandwidth employed by the current commercial wireless 'i' systems..

Note that the fertility/sperm rates have also been very adversely affected. Many segments of society can become within 1 to 2 generations almost totally sterile.

We also have the infamous interactions between psychoactive drugs and wireless technology and other adverse social, psychological, mental disorders among soldiers, students, and teenagers (especially in Japan, China).

And, of course, there is the potential for latent development of brain cancers, from the survivor remainders..

In 2009, Danish scientist Fredrik Soderqvist found that people who talk often on cell phones have a higher concentration of the transtyretin protein than those who do not. Transtyretin is formed in the liver; it helps transport vitamin A in the body and plays an important role in nervous diseases such as Alzheimers.

We need to put pressure on our MPs to take action. I believe there are MPs of all parties who would support a bill demanding action in Parliament. May I suggest everyone let their MP know how important this is.?

I am writing to you as the MPs in whom I am placing my faith that something can be done to address the woefully inadequate radiation safety codes currently in place in Health Canada.

As Mr. Atamanenko knows, I have been sending studies to Health Canada, the several ministers of health, and the Prime MInister for several years. I have been advising that top scientists from around the world have shown health effects, serious health effects, from prolonged exposure to electromagnetic radiation (EMR) from cell and radio towers, cell phones, WiFi, etc. But the consistent response I receive is that Health Canada believes there is no evidence of harm and that it follows the WHO guideline.

On May 31, International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a panel of WHO, announced that electromagnetic radiation has been classified as a 2b carcinogen, the same classification given to lead, DDT and many industrial chemicals. Many other countries are taking measures as a result of this decision. Shamefully Health Canada has yet to make a statement, except for James McNamee who downplayed the significance, even though he attended the conference. Now it appears they will ignore this WHO warning.

It is time that Health Canada be forced to admit that EMR is dangerous. Policies must be put into place due to the fact that siting of cell and radio transmitters near homes and schools can cause harm especially to children, that cellphones are being used without warning labels and instructions for safer usage, and that WiFi is being put into schools.

Time is not on our side. More people are becoming sensitive to EMR, more children are suffering from prolonged exposure with each passing day. It is time precautionary action is taken. We cannot wait for more studies while 1000s already exist showing the harm that results from this carcinogen.

I know that many citizens have raised these issues with their MPs, and that many would support Parliamentary action to change policies. Please, bring a strong bill forward and encourage an open debate on this topic.

Sincerely,
Sharon Noble
Victoria, BC

House Dems Call GAO for Cell-Phone Safety Review

www.nationaljournal.com

House Democrats asked the federal government to examine if more research is needed on cell phone safety Wednesday, following a World Health Organization announcement that they might cause a certain type of cancer.

However, Ban the Towers spokeswoman Sue Grey said the WHO warning added weight to the Nelson group s case for banning cellphone towers near schools and playcentres, and a review of the New Zealand standard for cellphone towers. ...